Royal Mail Woes

Yet another issue has persuaded me to write this item on the Royal Mail here in the UK.

Supposedly intended to distribute post around the country, over the years the services offered have declined and the standards to which they are delivered has declined even more. 

There are proposals to sell off the Royal Mail to a private sector company and to my mind that cannot come soon enough.  Sure, there are negatives to this as well as positives but at the moment it would seem that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Let us start with the delivery schedule.  Once there were two deliveries a day to most areas.  The first of these was often before nine in the morning, and the second being an afternoon delivery.  The decline in posted matter meant that this was reduced to one delivery per day - quite reasonable. 

The problem is that for many now the ony delivery can be very late in the day and effectively makes the first class delivery effectively a two day service.  The Royal Mail have cottoned on to this as a money spinner by allowing payment to ensure a before nine delivery service.  So we now have a service that is based on how much the recipient wishes to pay (remember the sender pays to send the item)  This doesn't even work as intended - in my last employment the company was on an industrial estate with a number of other businesses.  Fewer than half of these paid the premium - and my company chose not to - yet all received their mail before nine as the postman saw no point in visiting the same location twice in a day and so delivered all as if they had paid the extra.

My next gripe is with mis-delivery.  I cannot be the only one who receives post that is not addressed to them, or their property.  If I know where the post should go and it is close I then take it round myself - and I have neighbours who bring post for me that has been delivered to them in error (or the postman's haste).  Sometimes however the post is for an address some way off or that I do not recognise - so my only option is to put it back in a post box in the hope that it gets there next time through the system.  This does not help if you are expecting time critical post or your neighbours aren't as helpful.

Finally for this article (as there may be others) is the matter of so called 'Signed For' deliveries.  The idea is that the letter or package should be signed for on receipt.  This is intended to provide traceability and a more secure service.  Maybe, but that is not how it works.  Only last week I had a 'Signed For' item just put through my letterbox.  I was at home at the time but the postman didn't knock, merely pushed it through the letterbox with all the other post.

In these instances, what is offered by the signed for service (remember this costs extra)?  Nothing!  If the sender were to track this all they would be able to determine is that it had been delivered somewhere.  No signature would be available and not even the name of the person to whom it had been delivered.  Yet this service is recommended by eBay and the like to protect senders.

I myself sent an item using the signed for service last week.  If I trace now it tells me that it was delivered on the 6th January, and the sorting office it was delivered from.  I ask for an electronic proof of delivery and am told, sorry - not available.  To me that means it was just pushed through a letter box, somewhere.  And if you refer above, it may not even be the one for the address I typed on the envelope.

Roll on the sale of the Royal Mail - maybe a private company can get it right!

Football Chaos

Yesterday I was in Derby and made the mistake of trying to drive though Pride Park.

Why a mistake you ask?  Because Derby County were playing a home match in the Pride Park stadium.  I had not checked the kickoff time and therefore was driving through as the fans left the stadium.

Utter chaos ensued as the fans felt that all the roads were in fact pavements for them to walk along, meaning they were mixed in with the cars, vans, coaches etc which were trying to use the road legitimately.

Add to this the fact that the police who had been present to ensure order during the match were now leaving in their minibuses and leaving the chaos behind.  Could they have marshalled the fans?  I think not only that they could, but they should have.  How much extra time would have been required for them to ensure the orderly departure of the fans on foot and controlled the vehicle traffic.

Effectively, for some time the whole of Pride Park was gridlocked.  I am sure the businesses there are not happy with the scenario as their customers are considerably inconvenienced and probably stay away, as I would have if I had realised that the match had just ended.

Two other points come to mind:

1. The stop start traffic must have a considerable carbon footprint.
2. The number of drivers on mobile phones who clearly considered they were not 'driving' as the traffic was stop start.  This despite the fact that there were still some police officers around (mostly in minibuses and police cars leaving the stadium)

It would not take much effort to put in place a traffic management system, with one way travel using the full width of the roads, to ensure much faster and safer flow.  Locally this is demonstrated very well at major events at Donington Park.  Further afield you only have to look at the management of Silverstone when there is a Grand Prix race on - a very large number of vehicles safely marshalled in and out of the circuit.

Football clubs spend an obscene amount of money on their players.  Perhaps it is now time they spent money on reducing the negative impact they have on their neighbours.